2008-2009 GW National Security Law Moot Court Competition Questions & Answers

Q: As we prepare the jurisdictional statements, we are having difficulty finding the date
each prior opinion was rendered.
A: The dates on which each prior opinion was rendered were mistakenly excluded from the
fact pattern. The following are the dates which should be referenced in your Jurisdictional
Statements. They are not meant to substantively affect your reasoning in any way and are
provided only for purposes of completing the Jurisdictional Statement.
February 29, 2008 – A regularly constituted Army court-martial finds Dakota guilty of one
specification of aiding the enemy.
May 31, 2008 – The Army Court of Criminal Appeals summarily affirms the decision of the
court-martial.
August 29, 2008 – The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces issues its
memorandum and order.
November 28, 2008 – The Supreme Court of the United States issued its order granting
petition for certiorari.
Q: We believe that jurisdiction is proper under a different provision of the UCMJ (a
provision that is not directly addressed by either of the two questions to which the
Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari is limited). How do we address this issue?
A: Please note the following excerpt from Rule I which governs the problem:
You must confine your arguments to the issues that have been identified by the
Supreme Court in its order granting certiorari. You may not argue challenges to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces' proceedings that were not
granted review. You may not dispute the facts of the case, but you may challenge the
legal conclusions that the court drew from these factual findings. No points will be
awarded for arguments outside the scope of the Court's review. Failure to confine your
arguments to the two issues on which the Supreme Court granted review will result in a
deduction of points.
Furthermore, please note that the opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces indicates that both parties have waived all other arguments by not raising them
earlier. You are strongly encouraged to write within the confines of the questions raised on
cert. Once you have adequately addressed the two questions on appeal, you may choose
to research and prepare challenges to other legal conclusions reached by the court. While
no additional points will be awarded for briefs containing arguments outside the scope of
the court's review, preparing other challenges to the court’s legal conclusions may bolster
your preparedness for the judges' questions at oral argument.
Q: How should we cite to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces decision? We don't
have any information regarding a reporter or service in which this decision is
located. We only have the case and court name.
A: Please refer to Rule II.q., which governs citations:
q. Citations: All sources shall be cited in conformity with The Bluebook, 18th Edition.
Citations to the record, namely the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
decision, shall reflect the pagination in this packet.
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces decision is part of the official record. The
Supreme Court will refer to the record in making its final decision in the case. Citations to
the record must conform to The Bluebook rule governing sources and authorities, court and
litigation documents in particular.
Q: What is the proper format for the certification page? Do you want competitors to
sign their names on the certification page (as shown in Rule II.t.) on both the
printed/mailed briefs as well as the electronically submitted briefs?
A: The instructions are not especially clear on this point. They ask that you do not include any
school identifying information in the briefs. However, they also ask you to sign your names
on the certification page. As such, Rule II.t. has been slightly adjusted to correct this error.
The adjustment in Rule II.t. supplies the judges with each competitor’s certification of
honesty on the printed briefs. Additionally, the adjustment in Rule II.t. preserves anonymity
in the electronic briefs. Please note the following revisions in Rule II.t. governing the
certification:
t. Certification: All 12 PRINTED AND MAILED HARDCOPY briefs must be certified,
signed, and dated by both team members in the following manner:
“The undersigned do hereby certify that the (Petitioner’s/Respondent’s) brief
submitted is the work-product solely of the undersigned, and that the
undersigned have not received assistance with the preparation of this brief.”
_____________________________ _________
Competitor 1, Name & number Date
_____________________________ _________
Competitor 2, Name & number Date
The electronic versions of your briefs will be distributed to your opponents
and it is important that we maintain competitor anonymity until the day of the
competition. Please include the certification as part of your PDF but please do
not enter your name on the certification in the PDF version you submit. Do not
include any school identifying information at all. Competitor numbers will
suffice in lieu of your names.
Competitors should generally follow the file naming and identification requirements of Rule
II.p. Rule II.p. has not been modified in any way.